podcasts. ..

>> the first dispute will be colonel morris davis. he retired in 2007 and now teaches at harvard law school. and then we have andrew worthington, he went to new college in oxford, and we have known each other for a very long time. he has been at the forefront of investigating who was at guantánamo bay. he wrote a book called "the guantanamo files." it talked about the stories and he has code-directed a film

about it as well. also we have tom wilner and he has established the right of habeas corpus for prisoners at guantánamo. it's an incredibly important case. so we are going to start with mr. morris davis. >> thank you. i would start off by saying that it is a pleasure to see you. but i would be lying to you. i know a number of you, as i look around the room, were here last year and the year before that. and i keep hoping that we will take a historical look back at this regrettable but not in our

nations history rather than an ongoing chapter in our nation's history. i do appreciate you coming out again this year. you know, we keep coming back here and replaying the same story over and over again. not much happens in between. but i would like to say thanks to peter and the new america foundation for having me. a lot of people find it convenient to focus on the card ashy and family and whatever is popular at the moment and years of working diligently to try to right this wrong. going in and sitting down with a

group of young people that are fired up, they're going to go out and change the world. our member thinking of my generation is going to make a difference and change the world. i kind of grew up in the post-watergate vietnam era. i knew that my generation would make a difference and make the world better. and here we are today. so it gives me hope, seeing this new generation come up. they have the same sense of optimism and determination to make a difference. as i look at them, it occurred to me that we have raised a generation now that is a post 9/11 world. and what it has become is the new normal. now, i've tried to explain that 20 years ago, someone -- it was

called a sexual assault. it became an everyday fact of life, things that we just accept now. it changes public perception. during the bush administration, polls showed that a majority of americans were opposed torturing, but now the majority of americans are okay with torture. so let's talk about what is happening and why this has become the picture of america. as we go into the second term of the obama administration, perhaps there is some room for optimism on the national security front. it portrays a better picture of guantánamo bay and this is one problem. there is the drone program, the

military program and a cia program. impunity, torture, secrecy. wiretapping and all pieces in the puzzle as it presents a bad picture of america. i'm hoping we can pull those pieces apart and put them back together. the closing of guantánamo, in my view, creates a new guantánamo someone else must address the underlying issue of indefinite detention. on the 10th anniversary there

was a lot of media attention and coverage about the 10th anniversary of guantánamo bay. you won't see it on google news and once you what to look for it. there is an op-ed in "the new york times". it talks about an evil that the military commissions were. so it's been very interesting over time watching this process and frustrating. i think closing guantánamo is the right step to take, but we also need to take a look at how we got guantánamo together. i don't know the bigger fiscal waste in guantánamo.

as peter mentioned, 166 detainees were at guantánamo. almost $850,000 per person per year. maximum security confinement in a federal prison had to be about 30,000 dollars. we are spending 27 or 28 more times to keep people in guantánamo bay. if you consider the 166 people, the cia has concluded that we don't have this and they don't present a significant risk and

we don't want to keep them. but it is because of their citizenship. you know, they give its consent to kill people, but they are not trustworthy when it comes to detainees. so there are things that are very critical in our view of yemen. i think that guantánamo remains part of this information. congress passed a bill that refused human rights violations and president obama sign it. in retaliation, the russians signed a bill that prevents

american families from adopting russian children. vladimir putin was quite angry about this bill that was passed regarding guantánamo. so we wasted an awful lot of money and credibility. it seems like at thistime, letting your sentiment, it has become more of it making sense or not. we have people that have been talking about how guantánamo will remain open. there was a pool out last week saying that 97% of the american public approves guantánamo, but also which did you have a more

favorable opinion of, congress or a number of choices? congress reined behind a root canal and headlights that ahead of gonorrhea and also the kardashians. [laughter] there has been a lot going on for the last 11 years. the senate was deferred because khalid sheikh mohammed cooperated with the government.

so it has failed time and time and time again. we have recently had the dc circuit, which is terrible at times. the same court on that service, saying that it is not in international events. looking at general martin,

general martin is the first chief prosecutor. he is, the department of defense has concluded that it is a legitimate appeal and they have dropped this against khalid sheikh mohammed and the other 9/11 detainees. the government has a podcast yesterday on that. number one is no other options which is true because congress said you cannot bring them and prosecute them in the united states. so we have created the obstacles that make military commissions.

we create our own justifications. it is because of the abusive treatment and detentions and if you peel it back, it's not about what they did to us, it's about what we did to them that makes military commissions seem like an attractive option. and you can't have trained police. i think the public knows that that is the case. every person that was apprehended on the battlefield -- i can't think of any but khalid sheikh mohammed and abu zubaydah were arrested while in

pakistan. there were others arrested in dubai and somalia. we have to have this special forum about the battlefield conditions is a great part of this second rate process that is more about less will go what we are bringing to court. another part of the issue is the senate select committee who has completed their report. and also john mccain and dianne feinstein concluded that torture does not work. and it's a stain on our reputation. i think that it's important that this information is declassified , especially after the premiere of the movie "zero

dark thirty." it will do for torture what the movie "jaws" did for sharks. you know, on the 25th of january, john kerry revealed the name of someone who was allegedly involved. talking about torture versus committing torture -- sometimes it seems to make you a hero. they are heroes in the eyes of those who believe that torture

works. we are often sending someone to prison and no one has gone to prison for their actions. i mentioned the program where it is a mistake to talk about it and we have a military program that is governed by the laws of war. and we have distinction and all laws and rules that regulate the armed forces. by following those rules, military personnel have been killed in combat. you have immunity as a combatant. if you kill the people around them, and you apply the laws of war, that that is collateral damage and immunity. that the cia has a program and

is a civilian agency of contractors and they are not part of the military and the laws don't apply. and collateral damage doesn't apply. so i'm not sure where we get the authority today and around the world to commit what i believe is murder. and we finally have a kill list. president obama campaigned in 2008 and we turn our back on our values. and we are going to restore our reputation and i don't recall president bush having unilateral authority to not have a trial. so hopefully these pieces of the puzzle get re-examined during a second term. ambassador stevens body came

back from benghazi and obama met it at andrews air force base. they said that they were not going to be deterred. he said that america will shine as a light to the world and i think we have done over the last few years and we have been warning light and instead of a guiding light. so i'm hoping in the second term to represent. >> thank you and hello everybody. i wish we were here to assure the closing of guantánamo. that was absolutely the right thing to do [inaudible]

that sadly is the truth. when you look at what that means, what does it mean to the people of guantánamo, the most important is that we all need to be aware of. over half of the prisoners in guantánamo have been poorly cared for in that prison -- cared for by officials in the prison and the intelligence agency. and yet they have not been

released. the united states has a high-level protest. in half of these cases, these numbers were under military review. in some cases, we may not know this. but it is as long ago as 2004. some of them happened in 2006 and others in 2007. in september, there was paperwork and the united states government that was recommended to. with nearly six years after he

was officially told that you should be released from prison. united states government has decided that there will be a terrorist threat, even the kids themselves. the point i want to make is that just thinking about what it means to be released from guantánamo and compare that to some dreadful regime that put people in prison. putting him in prison and throwing away the key. that's what happens. so then they say they are going to be released but then they don't release you. that is so cool. until those men are released, that will be the situation.

i don't understand why that is. we were saying we were going to detain these guys, it would be a different point of view. now, we know that one of the stumbling blocks is absolutely clear that there has been a major stumbling block with the president and congress and onerous picture. owner is depictions on the release of prisoners. refusing to allow them to be in [inaudible] refusing them when a single

prisoner has engaged in cynicism. there has been propaganda over the years and continued claims have done a lot of research over the years. but i think if you do a google search, you'll find one in 415 prisoners have returned to the battlefield and actively engaged. people who normally like the fact that guantánamo is a place of indefinite detention, but there are many people in this country who would like to hold

people for the rest of their lives. so it's a terrible situation we are in. but if we are to believe that the president of the united states is somehow powerless, i think we have underestimated the role. there are ways that he can argue with congress. that is on the long-standing basis of broad. it is so deeply insulting and we need to persuade president obama [inaudible] it is proving very difficult.

the thing is you don't let someone have more than two terms as president. by the end of two terms, people have had enough already. he has an eye on his legacy, obama does. and how he is viewed by history. these guys and these people are in important positions. bush and cheney and rumsfeld want them to take as a robust approach as necessary. and people like katherine bigelow went to rewrite the rules.

the president obama knows he will be judged for that. and i don't think fundamentally he wants to be known in that way. he didn't want to do it because it was politically inconvenient. so there are people who know that this is more of a legacy and this is an administration that has dealt with what has been created. so whatever ways we can, we need to say that this is a difficult issue. but it's not something that we can't all deal with.

in whatever way we are doing this, conversations with friends and family, those of us keep saying that this is not a position that the united states can maintain that 11 years after this dreadful experiment opened, we are still in a position where all three branches are held and holding wrenches branches that we said we wanted to release. we have to release these people. a problem is also the yemenis.

the underwear bomber on christmas day 2009. as though all yemenis are terrorist suspects. it has been too easy. so we have had this exaggeration before. [inaudible] it's a horrible message to be sending out to people and completely upsetting. the other issue there are

prisoners in countries where there are still a few prisoners in guantánamo and some from the chinese government. they were all opponents of the dictator that has been deposed. the united states government has says they clearly want to talk

about this. the first time that the united states and publicly said the names and identities of these prisoners, and the united states government doesn't want to hold back. now, we have been studying this and it appears that he knows too much. he knows the dark stories of guantánamo and afghanistan and he would be an embarrassment to the government of release. he is part of this whole situation and is a really good

example of how neither government office issue. they can delay it because no one cares. yes, again, if we can push on this one and make that perhaps our biggest message that we send to congress, maybe we will at least have had some progress. thank you. >> i'm actually going to stand up and talk because it makes me

feel taller than the consumer people. you know, i had no idea what i was going to say when i came in. and i thought, oh, nothing happens and it's so depressing. i'd actually have to tell you that guantánamo is off the map. now you can't even get a story in the newspaper about guantánamo. this is an opportunity to talk about it again. and i see c-span talking and it's really going to be what you all said. i think it should be clear to everyone that guantánamo is wrong. started out wrong and taking

those out of context, the government still argues that are most rights in the right to habeas corpus. that has been governed by the interpretations of the dc circuit. most conservative circuit in the country. including interpretation of what he means. of the hundred and 60 people there, 80 of them have been cleared by an interagency task force and we are holding people that we say we shouldn't hold, and that is crazy.

we say we should hold them because it's politically inconvenient to let them go, but it's just absolutely wrong. over christmas i was away and i happen to be at a dinner and a young girl was there and it was her 13th birthday. and her mother introduced her and said well, tom was the lead lawyer in the supreme court on the guantánamo case. and the girl didn't know what it was, she asked what was and she also didn't know who i was. it was more important that began the new normal. that it was not something on her radar screen. she knew about gun violence. she knew about other issues. she even knew some things about the fiscal cliff and the economy, but she didn't know

about one combo. i'm not going to say anything much more relevant, but when you have something, you know, guantánamo continues to hurt us around the world. i was asking if there was still an issue in the great debate after the arab spring between moderates and extremists make a difference and not in the way people think of the united states. that is not u.s. policy. this is u.s. policy. this defines who we are and

stands on our reputation. i want to finish what andy said. i don't know if people have watched a movie called lincoln. but lincoln really is a story about how abraham lincoln and when you look at it, there were a lot of other issues around in it that issue could have been avoided for economic reasons, a lot of other issues and people are saying, it's a moral issue. talking about yemen or other things and closing guantánamo,

these are things that can be done. the president has a commitment to close guantánamo. with this it is a priority. mr. president, this is your legacy. it will be on your historic watch and you have to get this place closed. [applause] >> thank you all for your persuasive and interesting presentations. before we go forward, i would like to ask you some questions. in a sense, this has been very

much a part of your lives. what prompted you, sir, you as a chief military prosecutor, you know how that position since 2007 and andy, how did you get it involved in this issue, this was by no means a popular cause with your fellow partners. if you could also give us a sense of the timing. >> my first involvement was back in 2005 and i came into the job believing what most of the public debt.

we were going to guantánamo just to kill americans, and i believe that and i got there and began to look into some of these cases. i don't want to make light of it, there were others that were the worst of the worst. there was some factor of others. so it is less than 5% of the people that are the worst of the worst. i thought that the government was really committed trying to

have a romanticized version of number. that was a significant accomplishment of that time. and i hope that what we did we look at nürnberg as having been in achievement and not a detriment. towards the end of my tenure, my policy had been enhanced interrogation techniques and people said president bush said that we don't torture and if he says that we don't, who are you to say that we do. i believe very strongly in our

country and constitution and principles. it's not as when it's easy, but we do it when it's hard. i think for the last 10 or 11 years in the land of the free and home of the brave, we have been living in fear and letting the government run roughshod over us. and that we will tolerate whatever. my commitment was i wanted to defend the country and maintain our values and principles, and i think that statement then the post-9/11 era is contrary to what america is all about. and we are still different with our belief in law.

and we chose guantánamo because we thought was outside the law. so certainly i have gotten fired from jobs and ostracized and it's certainly not the group do you recommend for my law it's certainly not the group do you recommend for my law students. [laughter] set in a we have to believe in something in the you will likely know if you are what you are comfortable with that in mind.

i appreciate opportunities like this to come out on a friday and was then. tv is what we have done what you. [applause] i was very disturbed about the eyes and ears and nose and the shaking of the shackles. he didn't look like a form that was internationally acceptable. it was very familiar to americans and i didn't know that at the beginning. but there was a very important message. you know, we've been realized as

time went on, a small information came out about this. the bush administration could do anything they wanted there. stories started coming out. they spoke for is what happened to them. what motivated me really was united states has such a common place in the world and was openly declaring everything. what they would do is fundamentally wrong.

if you deprive people of their liberties there are only two ways you can do that. you view someone as being a criminal and having a criminal offense and was in as short a time as possible, and you imprison them and neither of those things happened. even those without rights for 2.5 years. the supreme court that these men have no regrets. and they have to have the right to do this.

and president bush issued this is that it didn't apply in guantánamo, until 2006, supreme court said excuse me, gentlemen, but any president that you're holding meet the minimum protection. in 19 you cannot be cruel and abusive. the united states was happily torturing people. there are fundamental issues and we have the ability for the freedom of information lawsuit in 2000 and 2006, 8000 pages of

allegations and the transcript of the review that took place, the processes, finding out who these prisoners were then telling the world's greatest analyzing where and when they were captured and so forth. most of them came to guantánamo and almost nothing was known about them. and if it were as it goes on and had to build a story and they did it pushing people until they couldn't take it anymore.

what supports the evidence most of it is allegations that were made by quite a small number of prisoners. the whole thing is a house of cards built upon these statements are false in some cases by bribing prisoners. the whole thing is hollow and disgusting. that is what i why i got involved in why i am still here. everywhere you look at this story, the kind of industrial

violence that has taken place is horrible. i'm still going to need him. it is the culture of the nation. it shouldn't matter how people are treated individually. but the principle is that they are of them is misplaced or 11 years. gone for good that in four years president obama still has not accomplished the appropriate goals. that would be a crying shame for america. >> i would like to pay a

compliment. we represent the military tradition in this country and i want to say that since i have been involved in the fight from the beginning, a lot of these military guys were overwritten by the tradition in the military are about. my own personal story as i am a little jewish kid whose grandfather came from russia in 1880 something. and one doesn't know whether this or not it was cool my great-grandfather was a famous rabbi. and he said if there really is

such a country, of children growing up there. and my grandfather and his three brothers came to the united states. my grandfather, more than any religion, my grandfather would recite the declaration of independence of the preamble of the gettysburg address. we have injustice and the rule of law. and you know, i believe what ronald reagan said. our values are our greatest strength in the world. and i do believe what was said, it matters when you are tested and you have to do it.

thank you. >> we would like to open it up for questions. >> could you talk about the impact it will have? >> this is becoming a new year's eve tradition.

if anyone is being transferred out of guantánamo, they have to be given a certification and the reasons for the transfer out have to be noted. on new year's eve, it becomes which will draw first. the ball in times square or obama? there is another key word i would use to describe what has been done. all the right things have been said about the rule of law and principles and values. but he has failed to live up to his words. but a lot of the critics are the ones that say that president

bush and anyone who decides to interfere with this executive discretion, you know, it was unconstitutional to infringe on the power of the same people he was trying to end up as well and making it difficult. so i think the commander-in-chief is using the bully pulpit. and he has taken the fight to the other side. he hasn't done that on these national security issues. the other side has a narrative to i am correct, he issued a statement meaning that he has the right to ignore that provision of the act? >> that's correct. he was very critical of president bush and his statement

and at the end of the day he signed a bill that says you can't transfer this into another country. >> okay. most people in the country believe that guantánamo is full of dirt. in that context, members of congress who put into that fear and hysteria, say we are going to stand up and protect us, but we won't let them in the united states or somewhere else. so the way to oppose it -- you know, you can't just say that, you have to work at it and take it on. when we're fighting over the fiscal cliff and other things, the republican party doesn't

want to take it on. so the restrictions are in there and it needs to be a long-term plan. >> the 86 people have been cleared for release. perhaps there is a little more detail about who is advocated for release. the long-term doj lawyer, can you tell us who else was involved in the protest? >> the protest -- after obama was elected, you have these people in guantánamo and they didn't even know who they were. some of the obama administration said is let's collect this and put together a task force.

the passports got screwed up to start with. included every agency. there is now an assistant attorney general who the deputies then they had represented at from every agency from the cia and the defense intelligence agency and defense department. it was a very conservative agency and there has had to be unanimous opinion to clear anyone. this person is not of intelligence value. so if we were careful with this process, many of the people couldn't come to be unanimous

agreement. i hope that helps answer some of the questions. .. some of those are recommended for trial because the government said they were too dangerous to

these and didn't have sufficient evidence. that's what i have issue with. i think it is important to remain focused on the prisoners who were cleared. if the task force of the sober officials recommend the transfer, surely all that is required is the most minimal kind of supervision. then it's not the suggestion they should go for one person to another. it is that they should be released. i think primarily because lawyers are involved it isn't just for reasons of security that they approve people for transfer rather than send cleared for release. let them go. let them go free. the legacy.admit responsibility. that will get sued. these people are not dangerous. when you ask a question, i'm having to calibrate their danger to me.

the task force would not have approved them to go if we were not talking about people who are infamous. >> what is the stumbling block on the yemenis in particular? >> there are two stumbling blocks to the series began in a fair and stable. so if you release them, other than the 15 to 30 people, everyone agrees or not dangerous. even if they fought against us in afghanistan, they're nothing. you really that dangerous people. they're basically nothing people. so the fear is that young man is unstable, that one of these people can get out. republicans in congress will give them terrible and you said is politically.

one of the reasons for these people could be released in the united states congress are yelling around and say they're dangerous. don't let them near our children. pizzo said even everyone makes that or anything, the uighurs, said the stumbling block is stumbling block invariant. yemen is unstable. we don't want people the united states. if we don't let them in the united states, we go to other countries and if you let the man, way should retake the legs as a stepping stone system. >> more people care to nurse more criticism because of his president urged. criticism had percolated through globally and domestically that something was deeply wrong and there is a lot of criticism. president bush was releasing prisoners. the questions that we have now

from a point of view if it seems to be very, very deeply and faith in the most massive case has to be made for the release of anybody. so we've ended up with this extraordinary situation, which is they keep repeating its deeply unacceptable. it was almost easy. were not fundamentally talking about different people. because her on half the cleared prisoners were cleared for release under present push because many of them were yemenis. if you're a saudi, and they came in a certain point quite easy because the united states has a much closer relationship with saudi arabia and negotiations were undertaken. but it's really not acceptable. we can all agree is a few dozen

yemenis. these are quite dangerous people, so we have to be very careful and hopefully we can but most of them on trial. so the prisoners and have been treated the same. precious rom. we need to be able to make the case that the people really are, let's not crank up the hysteria and fear because that's what is happening. since president of ghana made his announcement and then didn't follow-up it hasn't taken a lead, we've had people filling that vacuum, whose mission is one of stirring up fear in their own personal political motive, not because they genuinely believe it. >> misses last year's that it's

been that long. i was driving and heard on npr and there was a story about someone being imprisoned in cuba and it was unfair and it was unfair and i thought it was going to be a story about one time though and it is about alan gross, an american citizen in prison in cuba and our government is very good. and there have not be for the hackers that were picked to were really good about how dare you hold an american citizen and insisting that it's a violation of the rule of law and you can't do this, yet we've got people that are spent more than a decade in prison because of their citizenship, they they are not here to be punished. they are here because of their citizenship and i would imagine the public, the right wing

airbags on the radio and television would be pitching a fit if americans were held as of their citizenship year after year after year another country. but we're supposed to american exceptionalism, which apparently creates an exception when we do things that we condemn others for doing, which is fundamentally wrong. >> this gentleman here. can you wait for the microphone? >> i'm eric lewis. they litigated the case on behalf of the british detainees, civil torture and religious abuse case. i would like to ask you about next year with the with straw of all troops in the end of combat in afghanistan. what is your view on the basis under the law of war are continuing to hold without detection or trial, the people left at guantánamo?

>> and just to add to that, it is an opportunity for congress to revisit authorization for the use of military force, which most congresspeople when they voted didn't think was going to last for 12, 13 years. is there any chance there might be a modified authorization once combat troops leave afghanistan? >> the question is no authorization to hold people, as mao and andy said, you can arrest people for criminal charge or in a combat situation, take troops and hold until the end of the battle and the purpose is not to punish them, but keep them out of the battle. the battle is over. can you say congress would have no right to even out the race.

that is an argument. the argument for most people beat holland in smearing combat. the government will argue that it really picked up the continuing war on terror. this is technical. i don't think the case which authorizes tension, holding people on war and terrorist they say is at least a case was decided as an american citizen, but picking someone up in the context of the particular combat that's going on. and this is confusing for people, but if the war is over, you can't hold prisoners of war. >> jay johnson, general counsel for department of defense, who is leaving to go back to private prayer is, who in my opinion is a person that got us out of of respect for your comment gave a

talk at oxford or somewhere like and where he didn't go into great detail on this, that suggested the same thing, that the war is winding down and when it does come at the legal justification we used to detain these people likely goes the way when the war winds down. >> whitman also take away the good justification for drought strikes outside the war zone? what is the answer? >> you know, i'll let someone else answered because i try to keep the drones away from this issue. i'm terribly troubled by it. but one isn't contingent on the other. i want to get guantánamo closed. >> we have two lawyers here. authorization for use of military force, is that the

underlying legal rationale for john streaks in places like yemen? >> again, you have to keep in mind there are two drum programs. for the military program, that yes, it is based on we were at war and combatants killed the enemy, even if there unlawful when they come back. it's much harder to make that argument. like he said, authorization for the use of military force. >> i'm not asking if it's completely legally kosher and your own minds. i'm asking, is that the legal basis under which the administration, whether bush or a a bum off erases the use of drought strikes. >> we don't know, because they won't tell us. in the lawsuit trying to get the legal justification. the governments argument is the

government has never officially acknowledged that we have a charm program. >> they are saying even though they talk about it on crow about the success, they said the government has never officially acknowledged that we have a drone program. but the argument like somalia and yemen and pakistan is we have the consent of the government to hunt down bad guys and killed them if it benefits from them as well. i don't know if the law of war is the legal rationale for those strikes. >> there is a distinction. i think the government can make a strong argument based on the commander-in-chief's valor under the constitution that he is the right to take action to protect the united states. it's a slippery slope and you see how far it goes.

that is independent of the authorization for the use of military force. the passage by congress makes the power stronger. justice jackson said when you have the congress together, they can argue in the constitution. one of the differences is the right to detain people is always something covered aside from going and killing them. the right to detain people has always been something when the judicial branch uncovered by judicial review than the law. so you may have more right to use force than you do to detain people, the government. >> the au imac for constitutional authority or create shields for a domestic criminal prosecution, but the constitution can create international law.

and when we are killing people in yemen or pakistan or somalia or other foreign countries, the constitution and whatever acts of congress have been passed are irrelevant. >> i would just say that if the united states does thought of afghanistan and that brings to an end to principle they can hide this wartime intentions, but probably run up against that it's been avoided if people detained in wartime have not been detained as people detained in wartime should be detained. we have bypassed the geneva conventions and the fact that people are supposed to be held. the geneva convention to withdraw the u.s. troops would definitely signify. but the problem is when the supreme court decisions were made, the judges after the geneva convention, setting up a

parallel based on the aumf. that's what we've seen in the nba provision to try to expand and doesn't narrowly cover. it's whoever the president decides is the enemy. it's very troubling. but in a position where we argue we've reached the end, but there's a lot of institutional push to run with. >> this gentleman over here. >> i have a question, maybe hypothetical or theoretical, for what would happen if president

obama would decide tomorrow, i close down guantánamo. he has commander-in-chief, if he would do this, what happened then? could anyone, or to congress bucket or what would have been if he would make this decision tomorrow? >> well, there are practical problems now with wicked people can go. so it takes work to get it so you can empty people at guantánamo. you need to open it up so people can come to the united states and make it easier for them to go to countries. i go back to the lincoln thing. lincoln couldn't just say, i'm not going to allow slaves

anywhere. he needs to work a three democratic political process. it is difficult, but you've got to work it. you couldn't do it tomorrow. there's a certain number of people who can't go back to syria, who can't go back to china. others who can't go anywhere. they may need to be in the united states for a while. by the way, i think is there in the united states for o'reilly can challenge the intentions of those illegally detained. there are kuwaitis there who could go home. you need to work, but you need to be committed to working again and not a tear. the fact is he hasn't done not. >> i would say the problem is we have too defined for the purpose of our. while thomas talking i just realized this palestinian still in guantánamo. you can't return postings from guantánamo because it goes through a surreal as negotiations never went anywhere. all the other palestinians, a

handful in other countries. this young man was almost taken in by this government in 2009. he can't go anywhere until somebody else's in their home. so there are the yemenis, the other cleared prisoners and then there are the rest of the prisoners, the one who either designate. there's only those three groups to talk about, but that's what we have to push. >> do you look back at the memos written that gave president bush the justification to do what he did serve as commander-in-chief anything that will constrain the exercise of authority is unconstitutional. so basically the president has limitless power. that was good advice that then.

the president as commander-in-chief could make a decision in that capacity. the nda says no money per read it here. the president controls a lot of executive branch agencies that have budget and airplanes in the ability to arrange transportation. it would take growing a big pair, but if he ever did -- last march >> when the obama administration came up in san diego order to close guantánamo within a year, there is a plan. first they were going to do this review process. it took longer than it should have, but they realized in order to give countries to take people from guantánamo, we have to take some. there's a plan to put the uighurs in northern virginia where there is a uighur community. these are totally innocent people. they were going to do it and a

congressman found out about it said you can't can't take these terrorists to my country. frank wolf. in fairness, he announced the closing of guantánamo. dick cheney said this is a horrible idea, worst of the worst, a statement culpably follows because with 40 of the people have been cleared by the bush administration. either cheney was fine consciously or he didn't know the facts. in any event, the obama administration didn't take that long. when they are going to take readers into virginia, frank wolf said don't you dare do that. the obama administration backed down. from that moment they said you can't take it. so what he's got to do again if he's got to grow a pair of big ones, but it's got to have a plan any skype to work it. there's problems, but it's

doable. it will take a few months, but he could do it. there's no political value. >> is your legacy. >> where am i going? sorry. [inaudible] colonel davis mentioned "the new york times" yesterday and i was wondering a corollary of this previous question, but there are might be a wrongly number of individuals who have intentions and i know that mr. wilner said if they were brought here because argued the intention,

but there's also the argument emerging that if they were brought here, if wonton memo were closed, they would likely be held in expression are conditioned to be messed worse than guantánamo. so i was interested in hearing. >> you mention the word likely, which jessica also did in her arguments in newspaper. politically this is confirmed. what she's done with that very damaging out that i have to say issue made it look as though there's no argument to be had about what may happen if he would proceed with the sensible argument that prisoners need to be brought here for us to begin the process is genuinely closing guantánamo. maybe it is likely, but why did she not say we could argue about that, that negotiations had deal to take place about what conditions he said would be held

in. why would they be held in their man who's never been convicted of anything? there's no direct correlation between people of guantánamo and never be held in the united states. it would have to be negotiated. >> first of all, guantánamo is a super max prison. it's a super max as the prisons here. people who say conditions are good they are, they are terrible. let me tell you why they are terrible. not only are they super max conditions, but are in a place that they are isolated and can't see their families. in a super max prison in chicago or someone else, they get their families. they have seen famous for 11 years. they are allowed to call once a month or they can talk.com. so that's something if they were the united states come in to get

to their families. it's another significant fact that jennifer another start relays. while they're in guantánamo, i probably shouldn't say this publicly, but the basic at guantánamo they within the jurisdiction of the d.c. circuit. the reason they can challenge is the d.c. circuit has adopted a rule that says you these behaviors challenge. that's an absurd rule. if they were somewhere else, they unite different circuit and you could challenge their detention. indefinite detention is not legal under u.s. law. there needs to be a basis for it. if there's no basis, other circuits might expect. other things -- well, let me say and he is absolutely right. three years ago when the obama administration said the cbc about thompson, i talked with the obama administration.

is that we don't want to see both super max conditions. they said we will agree to hold them to the content they are consistent with the geneva convention. so it's all negotiable. people assume the worst. i frankly think the reason a lot of people assume they shouldn't come to the united states is because there's some lawyers who benefit from guantánamo been open. it gives them their notoriety. the human rights organizations who are opposing that, indefinite detentions in the united states are just wrong thinking. >> jump on over over here. >> thank you. i am with washington research and analysis. happy new year. i met you last year, to.

you mention the cost of detainees, that the cost, not the dollar cost, but the cost to the united states in terms of reputation and credibility of having guantánamo bay is probably much higher than the dollar cost. at the end of this presidential election, one of my friends in japan -- i am japanese to -- or to me and said it is a pity that the american people have a better choice for the american people such as president obama. the reason he said president obama was a flunky was because he couldn't even deliver on the very simple statement that he is going to close guantánamo bay. now listening to you, it is a little bit murky.

i'm not so sure whether you're concerned about the civil rights of the prisoners for the fact that guantánamo bay sophism in the u.s. should not keep open as the german gentleman has said. my question is, which is that? closing guantánamo bay for giving justice to the people, the 186 people? when you go in that track, everybody loses track of what's really the issue. >> i don't understand the distinction. he gave justice to the people. it's unjust to hold people indefinitely without hearings at guantánamo as a symbol of that. you got to close that i get the monitor. >> i don't want to get into an argument. >> your first point about the cost, not just economic cost, but the cost to america, the

intangible cost. i think we saw that not too long ago when abu hommes the was extradited. the u.k. is our closest ally at on the war on terror and our closest ally made us promise to before they would extradite, we wouldn't send him to guantánamo had been prosecuted in a military commission, which to me as a statement about wonton memo and military commission said we had to promise her closest friends that we won't use it or they won't give us abu hommes. >> two minutes left. anything anybody wants to say in closing? >> i want to repeat again -- there are some people at guantánamo who should just be punished and should be tried accordingly and punished and that will be just days.

for most people, their justice will be releasing them and getting them home, or out of prison. guantánamo stands in the way of doing that because it's isolated from outside the normal u.s. court system and to the extent they have court review, it stuck in the d.c. circuit. there are a lot of practical problems to getting a close. it's very easy to do. my main point, this is your legacy. you could do it. get it done. make a priority. but the problem and get it done. for some of the bypass in charge. pitcher on power behind it. there's lots of problems in this country from the fiscal cliff. this is a moral issue that defines our nation. it will define your presidency. you will be to blame if this isn't done. get it done.

>> very briefly, it's an abomination legally, morally, ethically. it's the reality of nearly all the men held at guantánamo now and will be for the foreseeable future unless the act of not and we can very obviously began by highlighting enacted on the most obvious of clearing people for release. and remember, if you didn't know before you come to some men were cleared eight years ago and are still held a that's unacceptable under any circumstances. >> i were to say that america is a light unto the world question whether we are warning lights were guiding light. we had to be a guiding light. >> thank you all three of you and thank you for people coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> hopkins could read the presidents ms. unlike anyone else. he came as close to anyone to gaining admittance into a robert sherwood called roosevelts heavily for his interior. unlike mrs. roosevelts, he knew when to be still and the presence of the president, when to press them or when to back off until it showed. after he won the election, wendell wilkie, who he beat vicente fox's. they they remained friends. wilkie said to the president,

why do you keep that man so close to you? that man being hopkins. wilkie did not like how it turns in the subset coming in now, you may be in the the south this sunday and you understand, but he asks for nothing except to serve me. >> air force secretary, michael donnelly said sequestration might have an immediate negative impact on air force readiness, and quote if congress fails to act an across-the-board budget cut including $500,000 in defense cuts. speaking to reporters at the pentagon, secretary donald explained how the air force is preparing for possible spending cuts. this is 45 minutes.

>> good morning, all. thanks for being here. the chief and i thought this to be a valuable opportunity to begin the new year by sitting down with you to discuss the state of our air force and issues and challenges we expect to address in the year ahead in beyond. to start come i like to thank the house and senate for approving the conference report to the fy 13 national defense authorization act and to thank the president for signing the bill into law. this important legislation provides authorities and policy guide to enable dod to support our work fryers, provide for airmen and families and protect the american people. enactment of the nda is an achievement and demonstrated strong bipartisan commitment to national security. we hope the success may spur progress on critical issues that

still remain. those issues include efforts to develop a balanced deficit reduction plan for the arbitrary sequestration cuts required by the budget control act, a final fy 13 appropriation bill to replace the current continuing resolution in the upcoming consideration of the president's fy 14 budget. congress' recent decision to delay pulling trigger on sequestration for two months was a positive step and although we welcome the delay, we are so deeply concerned about what may happen should refill to reach deficit reduction agreement by the end of february. our nation's ongoing budget gymnastics sixer casa consequences upon the air force and sister services and creates an atmosphere of unease among any uniformed and civilian

airmen. failure to enact a subtle budget leads to repeated budget generations, which along with the overhanging threat of large and largely arbitrary cuts grease graceful turn. given we are now into the second quarter of fiscal year 13, we can no longer live under the uncertainty of sequestration and continuing resolution without taking action now. i secretary panetta describe yesterday at, even though we are not presenting this worst case will occur, prudent planning for the third and fourth quarters is required. we perceive the secretary's guidance to begin implementing prudent measures that will help medicare budget risks. to ensure measures are reversible unrecoverable and to the extent feasible, minimize any harmful effects on

readiness. the air force is currently turning secretary's guidance into direction to a major commands, which we expect to issue in the next few days. impacts to the air force will be in the same categories outlined by the secretary yesterday. civilian hiring restrictions curtailing on readiness or mission essential flying a tribal, curtailing or stopping minor purchases such as furniture and i.t. refreshment. deferring nonemergency facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization. to be clear, these near-term actions cannot fully mitigate acts of sequestration should that occur. if we do not have resolution by march, sequestration will have immediate and negative impacts on air force readiness, specifically flying hours and make sense. i secretary not a has

reiterated, the focus now must the must be on taking the threat of sequestration off the table and enacting a budget agreement that will stabilize defense planning for the remainder of fy 13 and years ahead. looking ahead, our air force will continue to balance competing defense needs among the size of our force structure, today's readiness and modernist nation for the future. from previous defense strikeouts, we learned during periods of austerity, tough decisions have to be made to avoid a hollow military, one that looks good on paper, but is more units and equipment than it can support. the resources to adequately man, train and maintain them or keep up with advancing to allergies. to avoid perils of a hollow air for us, we played the best path forward is to become smaller in order to protect a high quality and ready force that will

improve capability over time. more than two decades of war and other operations have had an impact on our readiness. straining our airmen and families and reducing opportunities for training and taking a toll on equipment. the need for modernization is pervasive across our air force of service life extension programs and modifications have largely kept their inventories that today, cost of maintenance and sustainment is raising as budgets are flattening for new threats and technologies require new investments. like the other services on the air force will work with defense and national leadership to fine-tune plans and programs as we confront both the dynamic security environment in the nation's fiscal challenges as well. will it just in compromise is necessary, but we will be

brought consensus that the congress on the way forward to avoid a hollow military. this must be our priority. nevertheless, despite enduring challenges, i'm please to note our air force had made progress in any areas and can point to a number of accomplishment during the past calendar year. we work through the act did reserve component for structure challenges that were part of the fy 13 president's budget proposal to produce a compromise which congress passed unfreezing previously approved for structure changes. we confronted the problem of assaults and unprofessional relationships that basic military training and have come the defenders. we're strengthening our prevention efforts in recent initiatives in this area include the air force might help them while for inspection the establishment of a special but this council program.

with regard to space launch, the air force completed nine successful national security space launch campaign in the eelv program and this makes 55 consecutive successful eelv launches to date and 90 successful national security space missions. we've implemented a new eelv strategy to efficiently purchase up to 36 scores on introducing a competitive environment for up to 14 cores, starting as early as fy 15. as for the first time gives new entrants a clear path to compete for national security space missions. our procurement strategy is driving down satellite cause, resulting in savings of more than a billion dollars on the advanced extremely high frequency satellites and saving of more than 500 million for the

sibrs program. the result is facing a unexplained hypoxia incidence and put this critical aircraft on the path from to flight to full operational capability. the f-35 continues to mature and with completion of our operation utility evaluation, oue, training a eglin air force base will begin this month. although combat operations in iraq are complete, missions continue in afghanistan and we remain a nation at war. over the holidays, the chief master sergeant, jim roy and i had an opportunity to visit air force commanders in airmen throughout the centcom aor and found despite challenges of the planet, morale of our airmen is high. americans airmen are focused on missions and demonstrate every day what it means to be members

of the worlds finest air force. thousands more uniformed and civilian airmen in the u.s. and around the world work to support our airmen downrange in this total active duty guard reserve and civilian are the reason i say without reservation that the state of our air force remains strong. general welsh and i am entire air force should team are committed to doing all we can to ensure that the air force stays that way. strong, ready and capable of delivering airpower whenever and wherever the nation calls. another major milestone this year is the arrival of our 20 chief of staff, general mark walsh has brought new energy, tremendous insights and inspirational leadership to the top of our air force team. so before we take your questions, i'll ask general

walsh to make these statements. >> thank you for taking time to be here. i apologize from extra hardware this morning. it's ugly in the sequestration meaning a struggling for resources between the chiefs the other day at the first time i realize just how big rate of your notice. so i'm recovering slowly. yesterday we released the focus on airmen, mission and the intent to capture what today's air force is all about as well as to point to areas we should be focused on the future. it had its airmen as the of strength as a service on the five enduring contributions to continue to guide us as we move toward a matter what happens with fiscal realities of the future. they will be her contribution to the nation's defense. the vision embraces innovation is a genetic trait. i believe that's true for us to be successful it has to be true.

it's only a thousand words long, takes three minutes to a and les kodlick can get you a copy of it that you take a look at the bottom line is intense remainder was criticized for his part by airmen into a our manitoba innovation. that's the vision says. i guess it's not as their budgetary uncertainty. what can be confident the defense budgets will shrink by how far remains to be seen. secretary donnelly has made tough decisions in the fy 13 national defense authorization act and does translate into an active-duty air force at 329,000 airmen from the same as when they became the service back in 1947. just last tenure server type 1900 airplanes. we've separated -- not separated, but dropped 30,000 active-duty billets in our active components. they're simply refer to as a good strategic environment.

outback of the secretary's message and tell you what needs to us as a signature is a smaller and more capable and ready force, we have to be careful to protect her core missions and execute those enduring contributions and mentioned before because if we don't, the entire joint forces impacted in a significant way. director of the year national guard, chief of the air force reserve and i spent time and energy with a focus on communication and coordination between components and general frank ross, chief of the card through a knife at the same effort towards communication between air force and national guard bureau. obviously, for structure is a mix between reserve component as they can pensions issue and has been for the last six to eight months clearly. i characterize as energetic and improving. arezzo recommitted. everyone in the group is

committed to ensuring in the future when we come photos for structure makes recommendations to the secretary of defense that we speak with one voice. we'll do everything we can to get there. the first memory half of my grand father's fame in front of her house at 53 chevy convertible, green and white. there's a sweet car. i could take you out and show you a whole bunch of sweet b-52s. in 2020th by delivered the last kc-46 tanker, we'll still have sweet trained to on the rant. but at the same age as my grandfather's car would be today and the difference is my granddad's card has an antique auto plate on it and in 2028, your kids will be flying those in combat zones around the world. modernization is an option. it doesn't matter if we get

smaller. we've got a pretty good track right now with our fighter bomber programs to do exactly that. it's a good start, but is just a start. we have to figure out how to keep it moving. the bus talked about pettiness. we've been flying since 1991 nonstop. decreasing for structure, increasing trend for combined to create a readiness problem that showed itself in 2003 and our readiness declining ever since. with some forceful training -- full spectrum training on the back burner in order to take care of the fight. that's had an impact on us. what makes an air force an asymmetric advantage for america is global range, speed, flexibility and precise striking power. it's not always a pretty business, but that's what we do.

strategic agility require readiness from airmen, recruitment and training. sacrificing readiness or the sacrifices strategic images of airpower and i believe that's always a bad idea and so that's in the background is look to the future and put things together. that's america responsibly draws some from afghanistan rebalances to the pacific, demand for air power will the same. i don't think it will change significantly. the richards will haul in a different direction. we'll continue to fly isr stories. the other combatant commanders haven't had the support they would like over the last 20 years of the current capacity can withstand a nuclear watch and stay ready for the next call to action because i'm confident this one coming. secretary donley and i will work hard to ensure whatever resources we have are used responsibly for the best balance of readiness possible. that's our job.

we'll do it to the best of our ability. we are back in the effort because they've sacrificing. we have 700,000 unbelievably dedicated, committed and talented men and women in their first components of focus to it every day. let me close by at knowledge into very quickly before we get to your questions. at the end of this month, couple great airmen aren't retiring. one is bud wyatt. god has led to cardwell for the secretary, for cheap shorts are now in with name throughout his entire 10 year period is a great airmen, officer and later. to me, is also belmondo, mentoring or a friend and asked him if they move onto the next chapter in life, the entire air force will miss them. at the end of the month, jim white and the lovely ms. paula will retire in the two south carolina to begin their next adventure. chief roy has served

unbelievably well. he is especially human being and he's been the back bone of our air force for the last three and a half years, paul has been the heart. every airmen is going to miss them and wish them huge success and happiness in the future. thanks for listening, folks and taking your time to be here and we're ready for questions. >> thanks very much. spencer ackerman with wired. under the curtailment yesterday, was going to take a hit immediately? is our indy on the table? t. see that down? are you confident he'll be able to build a long-range bomber the air force has been looking forward to? >> the secretary's guidance asks us to focus on adjustment and spending powers that are reversible and recoverable to the extent possible and so i

think while it will affect all parts of our air force, we are focused on the operation and maintenance parts of our air force, which fueled the day-to-day operations of the year for us. so those are the areas that i think will have sort of the immediate impacts. we've talked about facility sustainment and restoration. i think that is a large part of operation and maintenance, funding to support facilities and buildings that we maintain. so that is a particular area. we do have to address civilian personnel aspects. we talked about civilian hiring constrained, perhaps freezes in some particular areas because civilian pay is about 40% of

operation and maintenance budget, so it's a significant piece. we can't ignore going forward, so we have to have proven personnel training. we are committed to the long-range strike bomber to which you referenced. will try to keep programs like that on track, but every program would be affected if sequestration morte hit. >> let's go in the back here. >> but hoffman was military.com. i want to ask about flying embers and if you expect the numbers to go down this year. >> we will try to protect readiness training aspiring to the year as we possibly can so that curtailments are the came cannot relate to to non-mission essential or not readiness related flying and we will let commanders make the individual calls on how best to do that. again, this is a large expense

for the air force. radley is a large chunk of maintenance funding, but we are trying to protect readiness impacts from flying our reductions as long as possible. to come back to the basic point here, the measures we are taking now are the prudent things we can do to mitigate risks if sequestration had in the multibillion dollars reductions fall in the last two quarters of the fiscal year. there is no way not to impact training, flying hours and maintenance, which are things right now we are trying to protect us on this weekend. yes, jeff. >> hi, question. the memo by secretary carter talks about the possibility of canceling third in fourth quarter shift maintenance and

ground maintenance level activities. i want to know how specifically will this affect the air force and also, general welsh, would have been to your arm? >> well, i'm the first part of that, as i mentioned, were trying to take prudent actions now better is reversible, recoverable as possible. were trying to protect maintenance for aircraft and weapon systems sustainability as long as we can into the fiscal year. we will have to look it with a third and fourth-quarter execution execution will look like as we go week by week into assessing how many inductions of aircraft that we take into our death those and with the expected output is and what has the most or least impact on readiness. our lifecycle management

commands and those that work in these areas will be assessing it ever aircraft type, sort of what the workloads for the entry to figure out how to minimize readiness impacts. again, if these cuts follow in the third and fourth quarters, there's no question there will be impacts. >> secretary donley is not nearly as nice a guy seat appears in public. the truth is about a year ago my wife and i will be exporting its my oldest son and her grandkids. my wife is a very good water skier and had never tried week building, nor had i. she neatly came out of the water instantly and was incredibly good, which of course meant that i had to be better. being the guy, was important for me to show her. templates translator and a

torrent of shoulder, i see once again my wife is better than me and everything and now i need to get the depth or repaired again before sequestration. [laughter] >> thank you, general. a.b. butler with aviation week. given what's going on around the f-35 program, and is the force have a patent can you articulate to understand more fully but to sustain the cost would be for the aircraft into brain-dead data into a system, the outcome of which will decide how many you can afford and when you will bring them the fleet and with the maintenance processes will be. >> out of the secretary has an opinion on this. over the last six months or so, lockheed martin put together a briefing was on my last assignment with our european partners in the program to talk to that sustain the cost of the program. the number referred to as cost

per flying hour. that was not the same number in briefings. it is characterized in a different way, different format. so when i got a much faster acquisition workforce to get with the lockheed martin team and put the numbers side by side and figure out the differences to try and get at the problem. that's one piece. to determine where reality is in the figures are using. that process is down the path committed to a point where we have a good understanding of cost per flying hour as we define it in the air force. members will be different for marines and navy were trying to resolve all that, too sober comparing comparing apples to apples. the second part is making sure is to get more and more actual numbers now because for flying the airplane. it's a real airplane flying a eglin air force base now. my first trip to eglin i got out of the airplane and it's

official. [inaudible] >> i'm sure wasn't. were not any actual data we can track in this equation which would be helpful for us and that will get way more definitive as we find more and more aircraft. it's very important we get a clear understanding of this number is critical for all kinds of reasons. for support, allies satisfaction and comfort level the airplane will do what it's supposed to do. one thing from eglin addicted to a comment they are impressed by powerpoint slides. the one quote they give you if they got the airplane right. that's a quote from the commander down there. this sizzle with the details tonight on the program, but they got the airplane right. that's a pretty powerful statement to people who fly airplanes. mr. secretary. >> to it recently, there's a lot of work focused on sustainment

and support for the f-35 program because it's transitioning into a training environment, so aircraft are coming off the line. they are being sent to eglin to balance locations and so, services there's turning to take ownership of this and it's important we get this rate. how to control support costs and provide streamlined support on a worldwide basis is on the joint strike fighter program for the agenda. there's ongoing work on the global logistics support for this and it's an issue inside the department of defense. i'd also point to the fact that in the context of building this program, the f-35 simulator is the most sophisticated simulator that we have in the fire world now. so it provides a great opportunity to look more

carefully at how we divide actual flying hours. ..

>> i think it would stay the same area and we are going to continue to do globalized world and precision. command and control and mobility. special ops. it remains all part of the air force. the challenge for all air force services and other services as well is monetary and how much will we have. so i think that those are the issues pressing on the u.s.

military. we all understand the paper into the joint team. we need all of these cards to bring together the world's finest military capabilities. the issue is capacity. how much of a will we have? can see what the airports will like in 2020. in terms of new capabilities coming on board. the f-35 will be fielded in well along in the development of the bomber program. we will have developed cyberareas, for example, you can see based on our priorities and wendy's capabilities will deliver. i think in terms of new capabilities coming, i think that will determine with some of the air force will apply.

but the underlying issue is overall capacity. trying to articulate earlier this week, i think there are questions about how much smaller airports can go in some of these areas. without impacting the capability that we provide to the coalition team. >> can you provide any updates on nuclear shortage? especially in light of a few years ago? >> i think we are a stronger in a stronger place than we were a few years ago. we put in place a more rigorous inspection process. we have restructured our nuclear

enterprise operations under the air force global strategy command in order to help us get unified management over this capability. we have worked very hard nuclear weapons center and to get give her a close alignment between operations and sustainment. so i think that we have made considerable progress in our oversight of the enterprise of the air force. >> have you made any preparations for a new start? >> the air force is in the midst of implementing the new start agreement. with respect to preparations for

adjusting the size of the force and planning for adjustments in the size of the force. we are doing the advanced planning that goes with implementation. >> is there any plan to deploy any thing to okinawa or any other place in japan? >> yes. >> i think i'll hold off on explaining for now, but the answer is yes. i can see if i can get you a more detailed answer at a later point in time. macro could. >> after all of the fiscal cliff negotiations, there has been a lot of chatting on the internet. a lot of these folks are getting

out rather than staying. is that a problem? >> retention remains very strong. i did offer commentary here in the current uncertainty associated with the budget process is here in washington. it does create anxiety and frustration certainly among the defense leadership and airmen as well. they see and understand what is going on in washington and they are very well connected. they are the most educated air force we have ever had and they have stay connected stayed connected to what is going on in the air force and what is going on in our military. what is happening in washington. so they are watching this and making their own judgments about the process. it is extremely inefficient and disruptive to have multiple --

to basically be operating a multibillion dollar enterprise which is the united states air force on a month or two at a time. and this this is not a sensible way to approach budget operations and execution. we can do better to mr. secretary, let me talk to you about the people in the air force. they are a little tired. we have to go with a smaller force and i don't believe the way you describe is a major issue. our retention rates are great. they are still proud of what they do. they express it every day. but they won't know what's coming. i have 19-year-olds asking

questions. they are phenomenally engaged and we are trying hard to keep them informed. you help us with this. the good news and bad news is that all important for them to hear. i sent a note to ask were we doing in one of the key issues in which direction do you think we will move. we try to keep that going to ensure that our supervisors are doing the right things. we are working is pretty hard. >> yes, sir? >> we heard an outside assessment that the dod will have to furlough the entire workforce. is that correct?

does that jive with what your expectations would be? and how does that impact your various missions? and is there anyway you can mitigate that? >> we do have to pay attention to the planning that is necessary to do that later, if required. because of the various personnel rules in place, all of that, we must pay attention to that. we have to plan for that at some point. we have to be prudent and that the sequestration falls upon his last two quarters of the fiscal year, we can't avoid these kinds of indications. it is about 40% of our operating account. so these things have to be

looked at seriously. they cannot be avoided. >> can you give us the breakdown? >> that work continues. i don't anticipate that we will change our position from the president's fiscal year 13 budget. in order to terminate the program. i don't think we are going to revisit that. we are focused in the mostly on what to do about additional aircraft authorized and we are developing reaction appropriately to address that. but i don't think we're going to revisit this issue.

>> the air force is criticized by several members of congress for extending things. [inaudible] >> there are important lessons learned we do have other enterprise resources and personal systems that are making progress but are coming along we are wanting to deliver what was intended with the programmer. unfortunately, we had to go a few years into it but we

extended time and resources and effort to adjust the program to see if it will be recoverable. and also to try to set it on a corrected path. that did not work. the department plans later this month, we also have some correspondence to the senate armed services committee as well. >> i have one more question. can you provide detail on the budget savings? how much you have to find and savings and would be think the book will come from and have you

started to try and put out any notifications yet to the civilian employees about potential layoffs and freezes? >> to that part of your question, we will put out guidance on furloughs. but we do not have information at the present time. we will be -- this is what we are working through right now. so there will be some impact on our civilian personnel management processes. we are not targeting particular dollar amounts. and i come back to this and the

secretary addressed this yesterday. there is nothing we can do in the next two months or in the next nine months. the remainder of this fiscal year to mitigate the impact of sequestration. there are no particular targets it is prudent management steps to start adjusting way we expend dollars. we literally don't want to follow-up our own clip created by the sequestration problem. that is our problem and challenge as managers of the taxpayers resources. there are no specific targets because they would not mitigate the impacts of sequestration and all they can do this sort of anticipate this. the chairman described it yesterday to steel ourselves what might happen.

>> can you tell us what share of the cuts that the air force has to bear? >> well, we do have a sense for this. and i think that at the macro level it was about 18% or 20% for reductions by her own accounts. i will see if i can get more detail for you on that. that is the estimate of all of this to take place. in the near term, as we introduce these strategies over the next month or so in order to slow spending. we are not looking at that particular target. >> thank you. the airmen and the air force are wondering about what our job will be in the future. that is the difference.

i stress to them whenever i get the chance that the job description was written in 1947 and it has never changed. i don't expect those admissions to change. the cybercapabilities we have developed were not envisioned in 1947. so our focus needs to be on getting better and better at the way we do these missions. the future is how to integrate internet platforms together. it is more near term. we have people all around the air force focused on the problem right now. my job and the secretary's job is to make sure that we enable them to do the best job

possible. >> thank you. it takes our total guard reserve to do this work. obligation as leaders is to hand off to our air force that is better than the one that was handed to us. that is how our air force has gotten better and better, decade after decade. our obligation is to keep this air force to be the finest air force in the world. we have airmen that will help us and we face the strategic challenges and fiscal challenges at the same time. we have been through lots of ups and downs.

we support our airmen and their families in this work. the active guard reserve and civilians. it is a difficult trade-off that they have to make going forward. >> thank you. >> here is the air force honor band. the air force band has marched in 15 inaugural parades since it was formed in 1941. the maneuver is performed will take place before president obama and the vice president and the families and guests at the white house viewing stand. the traditional of an inaugural

parade dates back to the very first inauguration when george washington took office on april 30, 1789 in new york city. ♪ ♪ >> [patriotic music] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> [patriotic music] ♪ ♪ ♪ [patriotic music] ♪ ♪

[patriotic music] ♪ ♪ [patriotic music] ♪ ♪ ♪

>> [drum beats] ♪ ♪ >> [drum beats]

>> you can see all the inauguration day activities including the president's address in the traditional luncheon in the inaugural parade on monday, january 21. >> next, a look at the role of women in military complex. after that, a form on the guantánamo detention facility. coming up now, women in military conflicts and how they are handling those conflicts. this is just over one hour and was filmed at princeton

university. >> thank you very much. it is lovely to be back here at princeton on this beautiful fall day. i would also like to say a special thank you to the people of the international office of the united nations. and also their admission of forward thinking and imaginative engagement. it has been ongoing since 1825 and has been sponsored and launched, the rest of which is wonderful. i was approached to take part in the series and i tried to think what i have to offer. this morning we had a discussion

on 1325. if you don't know it, learn it. some people think it is a parking ticket or something. [laughter] well done. we love blackboards. it is one of the real problems. is that most americans, even though we are very committed to the united nations being an effective vehicle for international peace, even those americans really don't know about this groundbreaking and

historic resolution. every single member to take account of and try to prevent wartime and militarized violence against women and also radicalization, and radical can be good. the second part of 1325 is to commit every government member of the united states and every agency in the united nations to ensure that women have an effective voice. not somebody's wife, actually someone who comes out of grassroots organizations and those who have activity and implementation of peace building

and he seeking in the postwar era. in some ways, that is a difficult to take seriously as it is violence against women and the prevention of it. the prevention of it -- we know this on many campuses on the united states as well. but it least it kind of fits the sexist notion that women need protection. is that right? i mean, that is one of the problems of it. that women need protection, oh, yes, right? it kind of fits the worldview if you think of women as those who need protection, women are the vulnerable ones.

but that kind of view, it doesn't mean it isn't much more difficult than that women are thinkers and strategists and a half grassroots organizations and constituencies and as such, they need to be hammering out cord and be there in the constitutional assembly in the constitution that often comes as part of the new police forces. sometimes called security sector reform. it means police forces. it means the building and training in mandating of the

police forces and they need to be part of a new judiciary. they need to be everywhere. that part of 1325 is in fact much more of the current status quo. so whenever we listen to people talking to someone if we do here, make sure you don't let them stop protection talk. it doesn't mean they will take responsibility for providing that or engage in the perpetration of sexual violence, but it does leave them their comfortable comfortable worldview, meaning that they think that we are the vulnerable ones. don't let them get away with that. one of the reasons they have set off so much new research and activism, work that is being

shared between activists and people of various countries as well as women of working groups, one of the reasons it is valuable is it is part of this thing called postwar. i promise i won't spend too much time at the blackboard, but i do love the blackboard. we don't know very much about it, to tell you that your. even though there are so many memoirs and books and documentary films we still don't know how much women experience these wars. the congo war, world war ii, it's amazing what we still don't know about world war ii, by the way. we still don't know a lot. but we definitely don't know

about prewar. sometimes you don't know about that until you are in order. sometimes until the war breaks out, we don't really know. what we are now learning from many scholars in many countries, there's been trickett worked about japanese women in the 1930s, for instance. many japanese scholars who are doing innovative work about women in the 1930s. japan's prewar. what we are learning from scholars all over the world is that the prewar time is the time of an attempt to position women as wives and mothers and

daughters, is that they will see their own contribution to their families and their contribution to society in terms of supporting wartime effort. it's the definition of who is the patriotic mother and the dutiful daughter. who is the good life. the idea that the good wife is the one who does his military duty and the woman stands by him as he does it. okay? that kind of work which happens in the media and government, that happens in the prewar time. for any of you that are

interested in historical research, to look at the violence. that means you always have to ask about women in different social classes and different countries about women in different ethnic groups and racialized groups and those who treat women who as if they are monolithic. but they have been pressured to take on these ideas of the beautiful daughter and the good wife and a patriotic mother. it's interesting from what we know from a number of societies. so that if you look at the outbreak of the war in 1991 and 1992 ,-com,-com ma one of the things that would strike you as the number of woman who said that they would resist being the

good mother by encouraging their sons to become an increasingly chauvinistic agenda. so it doesn't mean that exactly, who felt complimented. who fell for the first time that they were a part of something bigger than the one just domestic creatures by being asked to be the supportive wife or the beautiful daughter. these things are quite profound for american women and that is why militarization can be difficult, even if women have no

desire to take up a weapon or two be on the front lines and become militarized. the militarization happens to a lot of good people and happens if you take all the people in the world who are militarized, and the majority of the people who are militarized our civilians. we are militarized insofar values and certain beliefs about whether hierarchy is the best way to organize or whether it is about mending the protectors and women being the grateful protected. and militarization happens in so far as you can adopt the

worldview is. increasingly, as we adopt all of those worldviews, including the violence and actually the resolving the problems. having said that, what we are working on now is a matter that is called postwar. this is where 1325 comes from. and what we are now realizing is the work that is going on here at the center. we now realize is that postwar

is defined by warner. postwar is any error that can last a short time for a long time. it is when we organize the understanding of ourselves and our relationship with others in our relationship with the political system. as referenced. 1325 is something that makes it so his store. it is a resolution of the creation of a new kind of postwar. it is 1325 amongst many other things an attempt -- an international attempt to change the relationship between women

and men and political systems in this thing called postwar so the postwar will really end and become peacetime. this one doesn't change the masculinity and femininity and what are the criteria for being a respectable woman. this one doesn't change those things. some weapons might even be handed in. various militias could even be immobilized. but the ideas of the respectable

woman are not profoundly changed and you have less in place on the makings of remilitarization. because it depends on ideas about manliness and the good woman and those are left in place, then the postwar doesn't feel like it's part of that piece. try to get a lot of people who take things seriously is not easy. i'm sure a lot of you have tried. maybe you have tried to with your roommates for coworkers. people take seriously gender

analysis and they either think that you are some, you know, some kind of major. i went to the university of california at berkeley which was supposedly very radical when i was there. i actually didn't become a feminist until the mid-70s. what i now realize is that i kind of liked them. i'm not embarrassed by them. but when i look at them now and i am a bit embarrassed because i think that they are naïve.

for i was pushed to do with gender analysis of the things that i said i was interested in, i am interested in the rules that they play in our lives. and i was interested in all of that. i try to understand each of those things. i try to understand military institutions without gender analysis. but it can end up being unreliable. one of the things that happen to me if i was pushed by friends and students to become feminist in my questioning, i think that i actually got smarter.

meaning that i became more realistic by asking gender questions. it means you should be able to have a gender analysis of c-span or princeton or any of the clubs were situations in any workplaces that you have worked then. you should be able to do that of anything, including knowing how to start doing a gender analysis of hurricane sandy. because that was a major

disaster in the way that avoided a major disaster for a lot of people in new jersey and queens and manhattan. start at home. ask questions. if you have the chance to do a gender analysis of hurricane sandy that hit the american east coast, what questions would you ask? gender analysis is a useful skill. skill that makes you more realistic. when we start talking about postwar, what does that mean? is about how to get women more involved in the implementation

of what missions are obligated to do and how you go about doing that. this was a study done by a german ngo who had really put a lot of good effort into radio programming. they realized that there is a high level of illiteracy among women but they also realize there is a gap between men and women in literacy. whenever you look at any data, don't trust any data that isn't

general neutral driven. they experience all kinds of things the same way. there are mothers and fathers and this is not good or bad or a hierarchy. it is realistic about how people live their lives are in so this very good german ngo was conscious of the high-level of literacy and illiteracy and they have done some gender analysis. not enough, but they had done some, and they realized that radio would be very crucial for

women since they are illiteracy is even higher in those areas. they have also put effort behind programming. they created programs about family law and they wanted to help people have access to this information not by the printed word but by radio. so those are the three levels of gender analysis and they put them out so they reached to remote villages in afghanistan.

then they began to see that women in the rule areas had no idea that these programs had been put out in several languages. they were hearing that women in the rural areas actually had no knowledge of that and had never heard of the program. it was something that they put so much effort into. but the good thing is they got serious. they also got curious. so they did what they should have done at the start. they stayed around, they watch, they listened. and what they realized was the

genuine radio in households was important. but it is one of the prized possessions in a household that doesn't have very much materially. so who gets control of that as a prized possession? it is the person who is considered most important in the household, which was considered to be the adult in the household. it was turned on when the man in the household had a program that he thought was important to listen to and then the radio was taken down.

only he and his male friends in the neighborhood gathered around to listen. if the women listened at all, they were supposed to be doing other chores and if they hurt anything, it was by eavesdropping. most of the radio programs that the man wanted to listen to had nothing to do with women's rights were women's involvement in politics. now, why this is such a good story to remember is to remind us that being a gender analysis is not enough.

what are the dynamics at the micro level. the micro level can be this ngo or it will household. you have to be very curious about the relationship between men and women and ideas about the nationalization of importance and information and the most prized possessions in the house. they didn't stick around and write up the findings. but it was a very good wake-up call, i thought, that you can't just say we take this seriously, both the protection of women and the involvement of women in a very serious fashion. you can do that unless you are

gender curious. which means you have to devote time, which most of us do not have a lot of and resources which are always scarce due gender analysis. even well-meaning efforts to shape the postwar. that is about the efforts in recent months to try and get gender dynamics taken seriously. and what the gender and analysis have found is that people who

are doing small arms and light weapons -- and that is the general term, they are well-meaning and they know that the wider circulation of guns are more likely not to come. and that a new conflict could break out. with all of that, good commitment and insight and most don't believe that gender has anything to do with them. that is that owning a gun and possessing a gun has anything to do with manliness. but it's all in the mind. that it's not about anatomy. it is other people's perception of you and your perception of

yourself. and we know that young men who are teenagers and into militias and were handed guns and grew into manhood, if you will, with the notion they were standing in society, they had to be taken seriously because they had a gun. why would a young man who has no chance for paid employment, why would he, at the age of 20 or 21, give him the one thing that would give him status? how can you possibly have an effective campaign to get men to hand in their guns?

if you think you can have a campaign and not seriously think about manliness, and also its perception, you are on a losing cause. the second thing is limiting the number of guns in a postwar society and how they don't want to include women. because they have said and they have organized around this and have persuaded the government to some extent it's women who often times the weight of guns are. they are some of the best sources of where are the guns

hidden? guns are not always about that. a lot of women know where the guns are in their household. if you don't include them as strategists, what you are doing is the whole lack of knowledge and what kind of campaign is that so that gender analysis matters so that you can have an effective postwar resolution so that the postwar can turn into

peacetime. insofar as you do not ask serious questions. which means you must have the resources to ask the questions and you have to know how to get organization to help you implement the question. we are going to leave ourselves working very hard and we will have to deprive ourselves to make this shorter rather than longer. right now, as many of you know, there is an effort in the midst

of a rampantly escalating military conflict in syria. in the middle of the war is won this thing called the postwar is being created. so you cannot wait to start doing postwar analysis. oftentimes it is decided will be the main players and decision-makers in the postwar. in the capital of qatar, doha, there was a decision made to create a new and hopefully legitimate syrian national coalition which has been referred to not just as a

national coalition of opposition of the bush -- excuse me, bashar al-assad government, that will be ready to take over the government of syria in the place of the postwar. in the middle of war is a creation of the postwar. that's what is happening in delhi. so how many women were elected? is not just the qatar government making decisions.

although the united states government taking a very active part in the putting heads together and creating a legitimate election that could allow the provisional government takeover. i think there are 40 members of the new coalition. you know, there are like 6 feet. and this is every government that has taken part. it is a very formal process. ..